With all that said and despite being a GM fan, I was not for the bailouts but rather bankruptcy early on — before the government loaned them money and took majority interest. That’s how business is supposed to work. You mismanage, you fail and somebody else picks up the pieces. Because of the bailouts and all the propping up and bandaging, I fear the industry in general didn’t learn enough from this potentially strength-inducing event that could have helped them reach their historic unencumbered potential (e.g., resulting partial UAW ownership, that’s probably not going away).

On the one hand, Typical_LLN_Poster has made some excellent points and has written his points rather well. I’d like to think that the typical LLN poster is actually like this, and that we provide very good, viable, logical arguments.

But on the other hand, I think people like 1115, NMOFGM and BK09 are probably more common on these threads, making Typical_LLN_Poster very atypical.

I thought so.

Zesty Honda, as usual your comments lack wisdom. The key point to your comment made on 11/11 at 1:11 is “He got the job because he knew someone.” Uh, hello. Neat story but it doesn’t really apply here. Then you tell thezaj, “Your [sic] obviously not a business person and do not have an MBA, if you do you should give it back because you’re not making use of it!” Then you follow up with a comment to Long Dong Auto at 1:15 that clearly shows your limited understanding on the subject: “Your logic is flawed because you’re saying if only GM could get the best talent they would be in a better position. What happened for the last 20 something years without a salary cap? How will this change anything, please explain!” Zesty, you act as if the lack of a salary cap was GM’s problem all along. It was lack of proper management but most of that has been replaced or flushed out at this point. A task that is now hindered by this pay cap. Because you associate executive pay with exuberance, does not make it so. Others have used the example of athletes. GM is now trying to replace those underperforming players with better performing ones at a team that has a damaged reputation. How do pay caps make that task more realizable? How was it you asked Long Dong Auto, “how will this change anything, please explain!” It’s your turn to explain. Better yet, explain how pay caps will not change things for the worse.

I do agree that GM has limited say here because they DID accept massive amounts of money from the government but, unless there is another motive behind the government’s move, they must understand pay caps will most likely hinder the debtor’s ability to repay the loan. Next, the all too appropriately named Zesty Honda states, “top executives have advisors like Presidents who explain things to them. It doesn’t matter how smart you are if you don’t realize that if you build crappy cars people won’t buy them; it doesn’t matter if you went to Cornell!” A complete disregard for the last 5 or 6 products to come from GM which happen to be rated at or above competitive levels. I bet Zesty Honda is mentally living in the early 1990s because he is more comfortable there. A time when imports went mostly unchallenged. Thankfully Zesty Honda says “lastly” and states, “the US government owns 60% of GM and therefore the government can do whatever they d**n near please. That’s what happens when you put your hand our [sic] for government money, don’t be surprised if you get your hand back with a pinky missing! This should be a lesson learned!” I agree ZH. But again, if the government’s (Obama’s government, that is) intentions are really to get out of American business and get repaid, they’d reconsider this restrictive measure. I think a reason there is so much resistance to the pay cap is because it seems that Obama would be pleased to see caps put on all executive pay (but not government positions). This is an outcropping of that philosophical belief that is diametrically opposed to the American way.

LOL @ DrFill, “Let’s blame Obama for YOUR shortcomings You’d be dead without his kindness.” Uh, wow. Wow. Okay, um, DrFill, I’m not sure if you’ve been told but Obama is not a king. He is a paid civil SERVANT, (supposedly) bound by the law. Kindness should have nothing to do with it. You can keep your very Old World think.

Were people actually stupid enough to believe that the money didn’t come with strings attached?

The Govt bailed out all of these companies because they wanted to have a hand in them… and the execs are blind if they didn’t see that coming. Just like dealing with the mob… if they do you a favor, they want something in exchange.

Simple minded folks always think the end justifies the means. Scary.

However, what is more scary than the previously mentioned is how many intellectual midgets on here who think capping salaries is a great idea. How many millions does it take? How about, what do you care? Its so great to call for the head of someone else, except when that someone else becomes you. What goes around comes around folks. If you feel so justified in capping salaries for executives, why don’t we have bums decide how much YOU should be paid? This is simple economics in the works here. A perfect example why communism does not work. If you take away the incentive, nobody will bother. That goes for executives and doctors.

The decision was made to bail out GM because it was deemed necessary to keep them in business and workers working. Who in the right mind thinks it would actually help a company to cap salaries in a time they need every bit of help available? Is it wise to keep current executives or hire new?? It’s one thing to head a group that is functional and profitable. How much would someone need to pay any of you to go captian a ship that is not just sinking, but actually submerged a 100ft below the surface?? Would you hop on board?

I hated the bailouts but Í understood the necessity, without the bailouts it would have been a second great depression instead of a major recession,but after all the arrogance coming from wall st. and now GM I’m starting to wonder if we missed an opportunity, maybe a great depression isn’t a bad thing, maybe the lessons learned at that time are needed again, because the next time it will happen ( sooner than later) I can’t see any administration R or D acting differently.

I think all Americans need to tighten their belts and realize they need to make sacrifices to get this country back on track. The something for nothing attitude that we have led to all of this, the need for immediate satisfaction without a need to earn or work for things is why we are where we are. Yes Wall St and large institution CEOs are to blame, but its because of us that they were able to do what they did. Complex lending mechanisms and derivatives came about because everyone wanted a house, the car, the boat without working hard to earn the money to pay for it, they wanted it now and ran up the debt tab to get it.

What company did she head, she was VP of public and consumer affairs for a hospital? So yes she has experience, but that is not true corporate governance with fiduciary responsibility to stockholders, workers and consumers, I dont see how an public affairs job would qualify her to run a company, more over I didnt mention her at all. And head of the Harvard Law Review, how does that qualify for anything. To be in charge of an entity that has a staff of three people does not qualify him to run a company of tens of thousands. I stand by my statement that Mr. Obama could not run a major corporation because he lacks the experience and knowledge to do so, he is a great orator but I doubt he can stand toe to toe with most of corporate America and their comprehension of markets. These guys have to look at every facet of the economy and be able to understand it and judge the affects on their business model. They weigh fiscal policy against interest rates against liquidity while looking at effects on commodities and consumer spending and consumer trends to try and steer a company in a viable, profitable and successful manor. Rather they are supposed to do that, but in the now economy they really screwed up.

Again I’m not sitting here saying I think they need crazy pay, I’m just saying it’s a competitive environment out there and if the government really wants a viable GM they need to give them the tools to make themselves competitive, including competitive pay for management. I don’t think GM would have failed if the freemarket could have run its course, I think there were too many debt holders out there to allow it. It might have been broken up into many independent units, but there was too much debt to just let it fail completely in a freemarket. I think the government seized on opportunities to influence the direction of the American auto-industry in the direction it saw fit.

Goto Derek Jeter and tell him he needs to hit .400 and 35 HR’s for his salary to kick in what will he do? Goto the Red Sox who offer him 15 Mil a year and NO PERFORMANCE BASED SALARY. You might be right in a perfect world where we could change the compensation for every company exec to performance based systems, like Johnny was saying too – but we’re not in the perfect world and to get the top talent – you need the money to show up front, especially with a company that deals with more economic and consumer swings than a swingset.

It’s obvious these guys have learned nothing… but in their defense it’s almost really beyond their comprehension. This is simply the way they have always done and will continue to recruit and do business in North America and they’re not about to let a little thing like almost ceasing to exist change that.

Oh… and pick on GM all you want but Ford doesn’t do it any differently.

Example:
My uncle is good friends with the President of Little Debbies ( THEY MAKE COOKIES AND DONUTS FOR HEAVEN SAKES) He makes 5 Million a year, and Little Debbies probably dosen’t even do 5% of the sales volume that GM does in a year.

Issue is that GM is trying to hire a CFO and cannot at the salary allowed.

bye

FYI, Monday GM puts out financials since bankruptcy. Any bets on losses/profits?

I am going to bet, and the payoff is that you guys can make fun of me, that GM will be profitable this year (2009) and will pay off part of the loan to the government. Not the 60% investment but the loans previous to bankruptcy.